Seen a few. Last I remember was a caco toasting a chaingun zombie to death.
Which was nice cause at the time I had 28 health and those damn chaingunners pick the crap out of your health from pretty far away.

Yea, Doom 3 really belongs in Toys'r'Us, lol.
I know adults shop there for toys sometimes, but really Doom 3 belongs in BestBuy, WalMart, Target, and them videogame stores.
Some not so bright parents would instantly assume Doom 3 is ok for their kids since it's sold in Toy'r'Us.

Sure you want to go with via for you a64 system?
The 3 nvidia (nforce 3) 939 socket versions out all pretty much kicked the asses of the via solutions.
I never would have bought MSI before but clearly they have one of the better 939 boards out right now.

Yea, get your own computer and password the bios and xp to keep your Dad off it. If he doesn't like Doom 3 something is wrong with him, hell he probably played the first Doom but he has forgotten how to enjoy games. He is gone, you can't save him, he is one of them now (non-gamers).

Omg! Get me a lock of John's hair. Then we can clone him and have an army of him programming games after the original Carmack has shot himself into space in a giant soup can!
Hehe, actually I hope his space adventures bear fruit.

Who wants to bet he replaces his pc first and is playing Doom 3 in a few days while starved (no food), wearing same clothes for a week (no washer), and unbathed (maybe water heater got taken out too!)?

Nah, I think we should bash the over-eager politcally correct guy some more! I mean who isn't sick of political correctness overkill by now?
If there ever was a movement that impaired humans ability to discuss and work out cultural differences, it's political correctness.

I'm ace at math n stuff so I figured if I buy 3 copies of Doom 1 and install each copy I'd end up with Doom 3.
Damn, it didn't work and to think my math teacher said I'd be able to apply this math stuff to real life situations. What a load of rubbish she fed me!

That's the point though. These magazines want you to believe that their scores ARE relevant.
And these scores would be if they were LESS SUBJECTIVE.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a review that gets multiple input (objective) and a score that reflects this. EGM does this but for consoles....my xbox has been collecting dust for a year now so I don't read EGM lately.
True, in the end it doesn't matter for well informed gamers. But for the casual gamer looking to pick up a great fps, that person is going to see Far Cry 95%, Doom 3 94% and probably buy Far Cry based on the scores (placing trust in the scores that Far Cry is the better game if only by 1%).
Personally I wouldn't mind an EGM style review were 4 reviewers have a go at the game and the resulting scores are averaged. This is somewhat objective compared to having one person determine the score.
That is all. If they are going to rate games, they should atleast make the scores actually relevant.

Problem with the Far Cry review is the 95%. It doesn't live up to that score.
I'm not saying Far Cry is a bad game. It was a fun game but far too many faults to get that high. Replay value is very low due to the poor multiplayer. It's really not that great to play the single player through more than once. Even on ramped up difficulty the gameplay doesn't improve because the developer simply chose to increase hitpoints for enemies for higher difficulty. Damn it sure would have been nice if they worked the AI over a little and actually had the enemies behave smarter when on highest difficulty. Instead they do something that requires no extra programming. Anyone could increase the enemy damage in the game scripts.
Call of Cuty, a game I've had much longer is still racking up way more play time than my copy of Far Cry. The multiplayer in COD is very polished compared to FC.
A game like COD should get a score around 95%. That makes sense to me.
In that very same magazine where Far Cry gets a 95%, near the back there is a column where another contributor to the magazine points out what seems to be a disagreement with the review on Far Cry.
Then here lies the problem in my opinion (If these scores do matter, I think they do as some people do compare scores between games for purchases), it's obvious that the entire staff didn't necessarily agree with the review. They then need to get way more input on major game reviews. Instead of one reviewer determining the final score, maybe they should all chip in on the final score average (obviously one reviewer can write the review still).
I seriously think if all the review staff chipped in on the Far Cry review, it would have gotten closer to a 90% score. Still a great game but it does have some problems. And Doom 3 based on the faults compared to Far Cry's would score around what Far Cry originally got, a 95-97%.
Think about it. Some people actually take these scores seriously (and some of these gaming magazines are vocal about the accuracy/fairness of their scoring systems) and buy games based of these reviews. One reviewer's opinion on MAJOR game releases is TOO subjective. Some jokes that the reviewer didn't find funny in a review that otherwise pointed out NO faults gets Doom 3 a 6% deduction? Far Cry with bugs and weak multiplayer (I think that was the words they used) gets a 95%?
I really hope they change they way they review games before HL2 is released. Imagine if they give the HL2 review to someone who happens to hate HP Lovecraft?:
"So basically I can find no faults with the game, it's awesome fun, except I find some of the plot elements way to cheesy and they smack of HP Lovecraft (god I hate cheesy science fiction). Score: 93%"
Would you be happy with that subjectivity? Not much different that the reviewer who was put off by a few jokes in Doom 3.
How justified would Far Cry's score be then?